Bail Applications Nos. 9052/2023 & 8919/2023: Suja P.K v. State of Kerala; Sheenamol A v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 9052 OF 2023 ``` ## **`CRIME NO.743/2023 OF Pulikeezhu Police Station, Pathanamthitta PETITIONER:`** ``` SUJA P.K AGED 49 YEARS W/O PRADEEP M. K, MALAYITHRA, KALLUMKAL P.O, THIRUVALLA NEDUMPURAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 689102 BY ADVS. C.S.MANU DILU JOSEPH C.A.ANUPAMAN T.B.SIVAPRASAD C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR MANJU E.R. ANANDHU SATHEESH ALINT JOSEPH PAUL JOSE ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA ``` ``` REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` REKHA,SR PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.12.2023, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..8919/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` [Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023] ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 8919 OF 2023 ``` ## **`CRIME NO.0743/2023 OF Pulikeezhu Police Station, Pathanamthitta`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SHEENAMOL A AGED 45 YEARS W/O ANEESH M.I., MANGATTU HOUSE, NEDUMBRAM P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689110 BY ADVS. K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN PINKU MARIAM JOSE ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689104 3AADHILA S KUDUMBASREE DISTRICT CO-ORDINATOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, THARAKANVILAYIL HOUSE, KADAKKADU, PANDALAM P.O., PANDALAM KURAMBALA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689501 ``` ``` REKHA,SR PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.12.2023, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..9052/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` [Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023] ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **K.BABU, J.** ------------------------------------ **[Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023] -------------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of December, 2023** ## **`O R D E R`** The petitioners are accused in crime No.743 of 2023 of Pulikeezhu Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The Petitioner in Bail Application No.9052 of 2023 is accused No.1. Accused No.3 is the petitioner in Bail Application No. 8919 of 2023. They are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 417 and 420 of IPC and Sections 13(1)(a) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. ## **Prosecution Case:** Accused No.1 is the Chairperson of Nedumbram Grama Panchayath Kudumbasree CDS. Accused No.3 is an accountant appointed on contractual basis by the C.D.S District Mission. During the period from 08.08.2021 to 31.08.2023 the petitioners syphoned off a sum of Rs.22,93,004/- from various Government funds. Amounts were transferred to the personal account maintained by accused No.1, from which a portion of the amount was transferred to the personal account maintained ``` [Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023] ``` ``` 4 ``` by accused No.3. Accused Nos.1 and 2 jointly signed cash cheques for a sum of Rs.43,30,240/- which was intended to be used for various schemes of Kudumbasree. Accused No.1 encashed the amount covered by the cheques. Accused Nos.1 and 3 (petitioners herein) and the other accused misappropriated a total sum of Rs.69,14,664/- from the Government funds. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecution failed to place any material to connect the petitioners with the alleged crime. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Bail Application No.8919/2023 submitted that accused No.3, who had been temporarily appointed by the Kudumbasree Mission, has no nexus with the offences allegedly committed by the other accused. 6. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor produced the Case Diary. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners and the other accused illegally gained Rs.69,14,664/- by dishonest misappropriation of Government ``` [Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023] ``` ``` 5 ``` funds which was revealed in the audit conducted by District level Kudumbasree Audit team. The Case Diary reveals that the petitioners and other accused dishonestly misappropriated Government funds to the tune of Rs.69,14,664/-. 7. The Investigating officer reported that the petitioners are absconding and their custodial interrogation is highly required. The offences alleged are very grave. Investigation is only in the preliminary stage. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, in so far as the allegations levelled against the petitioners are concerned, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and therefore, they are entitled to anticipatory bail. The learned counsel submitted that the Investigating Agency is only required to verify the official documents to proceed with the investigation relating to the allegations levelled against the petitioners. Even if no case for the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is made out, that alone is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail. While dealing with this question, the Apex Court in **Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K (2022 SCC Online SC 1529)** held thus: ``` [Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023] ``` ``` 6 ``` “In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail.” 9. The factors and parameters that need to be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail are: - (1) the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused; - (2) the antecedents of the applicant including imprisonment on conviction for cognizable offence; - (3) possibility of fleeing from justice; - (4) possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences. ``` [Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023] ``` ``` 7 ``` - (5) accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arrest; - (6) impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly affecting a very large number of people; - (7) courts must evaluate the entire available material carefully; greater care should be taken when the accused is implicated using Sections 34 and 149; - (8) a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to free, fair and full investigation, - and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; - (9) court should consider reasonable - apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; ``` [Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023] ``` ``` 8 ``` (10) frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail. {Vide: **Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565], Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat [(2016) 1 SCC 152] and Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. [(2020) 5 SCC 1]}.** 10. Corruption causes a serious threat to our society. In the present case, the alleged acts led to a loss to the public exchequer, but also, the common man is deprived of the benefits percolating under the various social welfare schemes ``` [Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023] ``` ``` 9 ``` implemented by the Government through the Kudumbasree Mission. 11. The offences alleged against the petitioners are very serious. The petitioners failed to establish that the accusations have been made against them only with the object of injuring or humiliating them by arrest. They also failed to establish a prima facie case for getting the benefits contained in Section 438 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail as prayed for. The Bail Applications stand dismissed. Sd/- **K.BABU, JUDGE** saap ``` [Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023] ``` ``` 10 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 8919/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF FIR NO.0743/2023 DATED. 21- 09-2023 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT ``` ``` [Bail Appl. Nos.9052/2023, 8919/2023] ``` ``` 11 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9052/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A-1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 743 OF 2023 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT ```